Punjab govt’s extension of PEDA Director’s service quashed by high court for violating rules

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the Punjab Government’s decision to withdraw the retirement of Punjab Energy Development Agency (PEDA) Director, and extend his service by a year. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that the move violated the statutory rules and lacked reasons.

Allowing the petition filed by Additional Director Jaspal Singh, Justice Brar asserted he was next in line for the sole post of Director, and ruled that the October 4, 2024, order rescinding the September 30, 2024, retirement “suffered from an incurable illegality”.

Appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram with counsel Aman Bahri and Bawa Karanveer contended that Justice Brar’s bench the respondent was granted an extension from September 30, 2024, to September 29, 2025, with the approval of Punjab Chief Minister.

Referring to the statutory scheme, Justice Brar observed that Rule 11 of the PEDA Rules fixed the retirement age at 58 years and that Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (PCSR) permitted extension only “under exceptional circumstances” with reasons recorded in writing.

Justice Brar asserted that the impugned order merely referred to “important works and policies going on in the department” without explaining how the extension was in public interest.

“No reasons have been recorded in the impugned order stating how extension of service of the respondent would serve the public interest,” Justice Brar held.

The court asserted that the validity of an order must be tested on the reasons contained in it, not on later explanations. Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, he quoted: “When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons… Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”

Justice Brar added: “It is curious as to how the respondent can avail the benefits accrued to a retired employee and also be considered for extension, an opportunity specifically available to employees in service.”

Referring to the issue of the petitioner’s locus standi, Justice Brar added that Jaspal Singh had earlier been given additional charge of Director indicating that he met the eligibility criteria under the rules. This gave him a “legitimate expectation” to be considered for promotion.

Justice Brar also quoted a division bench ruling in the case of KG Nanchahal versus State of Punjab as saying: “Extension in service or re-employment of a government employee is an exception… Rudiments of such exception are existence of exceptional circumstances, public grounds and compliance to the instructions issued by the state… Arbitrariness in state action, particularly where it denies the right of consideration to other eligible officers for promotional posts… would vitiate the state action in law.”

Justice Brar asserted: “Neither the impugned order was passed in compliance of Rule 3.26 of PCSR, nor the drill of prescribed procedure was followed. On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside as it suffers from an incurable illegality.”

Allowing the writ petition, Justice Brar quashed the October 4, 2024 order granting the extension and disposed of all pending applications.